Alexander Yeh, David Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proc. of ICSE-19, pages 184-194, May 1997.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and built towards this goal, mainly because the majority of legacy systems are undocumented. Even if documentation exists, these systems help people compare the as implemented with the as documented or the as designed structure of the underlined system. Ciao [CFKW95] Dali [KC97] ManSART [YHC97] PBS [FHK 97] Rigi [MOTU93] and SPOOL [KSRP99] are tools that have evolved as products of the reverse engineering research. The above tools basically operate at two levels of abstraction [Til92] ffl the code level of abstraction; and ffl the architectural level of abstraction. At the ....

Alexander S. Yeh, David R. Harris, and Melissa P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proc. of the 19th Int'l Conf. on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 1997. Springer. 56

....like queries to group or filter code entities. The MANSART tool [HYR96] queries abstract syntax tree (AST) and uses recognizers to detect language specific cliches associated with specific architectural styles. Multiple views of a same system can be generated and fusioned to create new ones [YHC97] Portable Bookshelf supports architecture extraction and program visualization, it uses TA interexchange format [FHK # 97] HP96] We did not used these tools as basis for our work because we wanted to have the control of what we needed to model. 5.3 MOOSE MOOSE is a language independent ....

A. Yeh, D. Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of ICSE'97, 1997.

.... domains ( 11] 12] 13] 24] 32] 34] 38] 40] 1990 to 1995) seven papers presenting surveys or models for the field ( 17] 21] 20] 46] 51] 57] 58] 1992 to 1995) three formalizations ( 1] 2] 45] 1993 to 1996) and one paper each on an architecture description language [56] and reverse engineering [67]. Unsurprisingly, they generally represent the first three phases of development. Imperfect though this estimate may be, it still indicates very substantial growth since 1995 and a balance between exploration of specific problems and generalization and model development. Here are some of the ....

A.S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. Proc International Conference on Software Engineering, 1997, pp 184--194.

.... carried out as an interactive dialogue involving an architect (or someone who can at least conjecture architectural structures from knowledge of the system or an examination of existing documentation) and a reverse engineering toolset [29] Several such toolsets exist currently, such as ManSART [43], Dali [25] and the Philips toolset [29] and the Software Bookshelf [14] Each of these toolsets has four major functions: extracting architectural primitives from a code base, storing the extracted information in a repository, visualizing the contents of the repository to the user, and ....

Yeh, A., Harris, D., Chase, M., "Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views", Proceedings of ICSE 19, (Boston, MA), May 1997, pp. 184-194.

.... of software systems, by building tools that support methods for identifying, re organizing, and documenting layered subsystem hierarchies [7,10,23,47] Recently, some works that address the problem of high level design recovery using reverse engineering technology have been presented [20,21,49]. They integrate in a framework architectural style representations and a library of recognizers to extract architectural information from source code. Such a framework, among other things, was used to reverse engineer the flow information between tasks in a legacy application [24] In this paper ....

....PL AS programs with size up to two million LOC. A framework for architectural recovery built on top of a Refine based source code analysis environment and targeted for the C Unix environment, together with methods to manipulate software architecture views and some applications were presented in [20,21,24,49]. Recognition rules operate on source code level ASTs and collect architectural component and connector instances. The approach used in this work is different from the classical clich e matching approach of program understanding: recognition rules do not require algorithmic equivalence of a plan ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, Boston, 1997. 30 DRAFT

....activities [24] 3. Reverse engineering larger software systems requires other information besides the simple FAMIX data model in Figure 11. In particular, we must know about the packages or subsystems composing the software system, the files containing the code or the processes involved [1]. Incorporating new entities into the data model is definitively an issue in the future development of the tool, yet this will cost in terms of extra complexity. 5.2. Future work The following issues will be addressed in the future: # Exploiting Type Information. The first experiments we made ....

A.S.Yeh, D. Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In ICSE'97 Proceedings (International Conference on Software Engineering). IEEE Computer Society, 1997.

....an engineer can choose what to query depending on his strategy for understanding the code and on the aspect he is particularly interested in. Each query about an hypothesis gives a view of the software system, and different views can also be combined to get a better understanding of the software [YHC97]. Institut fur Informatik (IAM) Universitat Bern, Neubruckstrasse 10, 3012 Berne, Switzerland (richner,ducasse) iam.unibe.ch, http: www.iam.unibe.ch (richner,ducasse) y Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium rwuyts vuab.ac.be, http: progwww.vub.ac.be rwuyts 1 2 Understanding Dynamic ....

A.S. Yeh, D.R. Harris, and M.P. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of ICSE'97, 97. 6

....to the entities before generating the graph could be another approach to support reengineering [22] 3. Understanding an application can also be based to other entities like the packages or sub applications composing the application, the files containing the code or the processes involved [2]. Incorporating new entities should be definitively an issue in the future development of the tool. Future Work. The following points will be the next points on which we would like to work: ffl Using Type Information. The first experiments we made were done using applications developped in ....

A.S.Yeh, D. Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of ICSE'97, 97.

....raw information into a final specification. These refined elements are equivalent to views. 3. Related Work Several other research projects relate to the area of architectural recovery and development of multiple views of a system s architecture. These include DALI [18] CANTO [3] and MANSart [40]. Of these approaches, CANTO and MANSart are tied to specific extraction methods that focus on analysis of code based artifacts to find architectural styles or patterns. DALI is more general in that it tries to incorporate multiple extraction methods into a tool framework however it still relies ....

....is more general in that it tries to incorporate multiple extraction methods into a tool framework however it still relies primarily on code based artifacts. Information extracted is placed into a database and then views can be built via queries created by the analyst. Recovery of design patterns [13, 40] by automated searching as well as classification of architectural components based upon matching their characteristics [21] has also been a focus of preliminary research. Eixelsberger et al. 11] have a philosophy similar to ours, but with a different approach to realizing it. They recognize the ....

A. Yeh, D. Harris, and M. Chase, "Manipulating Recovered Software Architectural Views," 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1997.

.... maintenance easier, we need to understand the system s components and how they interact [22] In other words, we need to extract the system s architecture [3,25] Depending on what we are interested in learning about the system, we may want to create different views of the architecture (see e.g. [28]) If we determine that the concrete architecture of the system, which defines the way the components in the code interact, is not consistent with our mental or conceptual architecture of the system, then we need to investigate the possibility of repairing the system s structure 1 . We may also ....

....(specifically during architectural understanding, analysis, and modification) and identifies the commonality between them. Architecture extraction is subject to considerable software reengineering research; this has resulted in extraction tools such as Acacia [5] Rigi [18] PBS [20] and ManSART [28]. Given the source code, these tools determine how low level components interact. Just as important, we need to determine the system hierarchy of the system: how are the modules grouped into subsystems and how are the subsystems grouped into higher level subsystems This hierarchy or decomposition ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A.S. Yeh, D.R. Harris, and M.P. Chase. "Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views," in Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering, 1997, pp. 184-194.

....are not or only partially supported in the current version of our recovery prototype. For instance, ART is capable of handling statement level control data flow information to improve accuracy of the pattern matching mechanism [21] and ManSART has facilities for manipulating recovered views [22]. Adding similar features to our prototype is a natural topic for future work. ADLs Our notation for architecture description is to a large extent a subset of Darwin [9] The main difference is in our representation of architectural components in terms of source code units. Although we do this in ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proc. 19th ICSE, pages 184--194. ACM Press, May 1997.

.... (which subsumes Kruchten s process and physical views) The challenge that all these views pose to the architecture recovery process is that one must be able not only to recognise implemented design elements from di erent views, but also to understand how these elements may relate to one another [YHC97, WA99] 1.4 An overview of existing techniques Various techniques have been proposed that, to a greater or lesser degree, can help in the task of understanding existing distributed system architectures. These techniques can be grouped into the following broad categories: program visualisation, ....

....amalgamate the pure styles, with the architect choosing useful aspects from several in order to accomplish the task at hand. SC96] ManSART addresses this potential hybridization of styles by providing mechanisms for manipulation and combination of multiple style speci c architectural views [YHC97] In X ray, hybrid styles are natively supported, as elements of di erent styles are represented through di erent graphical attributes in a single runtime view. On the other hand, ManSART also supports view combination based on containment analysis among elements of di erent views. This allows ....

Alexander S. Yeh, David R. Harris, and Melissa P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 184-194. ACM Press, May 1997. BIBLIOGRAPHY 143

....tools, such as REFINE [5] and the ASF SDF meta environment [9, 16, 15] allow one to implement arbitrary queries over ASTs. These queries actually define the structural semantics of the F F D level, because they allow an analyst to formally define the PS to F F D level transformation. ManSART [18], implemented using REFINE, prepackages queries capturing the semantics of commonly relevant relations such as (example) task spawning and abstract data types. In addition, transformation of information at the F F D level is common; tools such as Grok and the Tuple Algebra (TA) 4] Philips ....

A. Yeh, D. Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of ICSE 19, pages 184--194, May 1997.

....[21] and specification matching [18] Although these tools may help a developer find individual components of interest, they do not show how these components can be used in combination. There are also tools that help a developer examine a software library in terms of architecture, style, etc. [6, 14, 26]. This may be helpful in understanding the design of the library which would facilitate reuse particularly with frameworks. However, such tools require a bottom up approach to understanding the essential components, their relationships, and collaborations. These bottom up approaches to ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, 1997.

....and operators, but the result would have to be expressed as an SQL query afterward to obtain the advantages of a separate specification of the system structure as SQL patterns. The extended Rigi has also much in common with ManSART, a tool developed at MITRE that supports architecture recovery [26]. ManSART visualizes different views of the system that are directly derived from source code, such as task spawning views, dataflow between procedures and data files, and abstract data type views. In order to combine different views for presentation purposes, several operators are offered to the ....

A.S. Yeh, D.R. Harris, and M.P. Chase, "Manipulating recovered software architecture views", Proc. of the Int. Conference on Software Engineering, Association of Computing Machinery, 1997.

....a set of attributes of these elements and relations (e.g. function calls function N times ) to represent the system (Kazman Carriere, 1998) 2. 1 Architecture Recovery Frameworks There exist many source model extraction tools, such as LSME (Murphy Notkin, 1996) SNiFF (SniFF, ManSART (Yeh, et al. 1997) and Imagix (Imagix, that parse code fragments and extract source model elements, relations and attributes. Tools that use relational algebra to infer new facts from existing facts, such as SQL and Grok (Holt, 1998) can be used to manipulate and analyze source model artifacts. Tools for ....

Yeh, A., Harris, D., Chase, M. (1997), Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views, Proceedings of ICSE 19, 184-194, ACM Press.

....library even if the developer does not know exactly what kinds of classes to look for. Moreover, as discussed earlier, reusing an objectoriented library requires some understanding of its design, so tools that help a developer examine an individual library in terms of structure can be useful [1, 6, 7, 10]. However, object oriented libraries are often huge, consisting of hundreds or thousands of classes with non trivial relationships between them. The developer would rather just understand that part of the library that is crucial to the task at hand rather than examine the structure of the entire ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, 1997.

....questions about how the new, overlayed structure interacts with the existing structure. Two reverse engineering approaches that do provide some support for investigating the interaction between the two structures are the Rigi system [9] and the MITRE Software Architecture Recovery Tool (ManSART) [19]. The Rigi system is a semi automated reverse engineering technique in which a user repeatedly determines criteria to cluster elements from a displayed graph of structural information. The criteria may be based on characteristics of the graph or on features of the source, such as naming ....

Yeh, A.S., Harris, D.R., and Chase, M.P. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of the 19 th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184-194, Boston MA, May 1997.

....examines the architecture, considers subjective scenarios, and other available information. To reduce costs and or assess a large collection of libraries, automation is necessary. Although there are tools that help a developer examine an individual library in terms of architecture, style, etc. [1, 10, 13, 18], we know of no tools that help the developer directly compare several libraries. With existing tools, the user must manually integrate the knowledge learned about each library. Automation to help developers directly compare and contrast libraries requires matching of similar components (such as ....

....on these techniques and shows, by example, how it can be used to assess libraries. Section 8 summarizes the work, concluding with a number of open questions. 2 RELATED WORK As mentioned earlier, we know of no tools that help a developer directly compare several libraries. With existing tools [1, 10, 13, 18], the developer must manually integrate the knowledge learned about each library. Yet, the problem of finding similar components across libraries appears equivalent to the traditional component retrieval problem in which components are returned that best match a user s query. This is only ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, 1997.

....library, reads the documentation, examines the architecture, considers subjective scenarios, and other available information. Tool support for candidate selection has been lacking. Although there are tools that help a developer examine an individual library in terms of architecture, style, etc. [1, 6, 8, 11], we know of no tools that help the developer directly compare several libraries. With existing tools, the user must manually integrate the knowledge learned about each library. In contrast, there are numerous reuse tools that help a developer select a fine grained component (such as a function or ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, 1997.

....examines the architecture, and considers subjective scenarios and other available information. To reduce costs and or assess a large collection of libraries, automation is necessary. Although there are tools that help a developer examine an individual library in terms of architecture, style, etc. [1, 9, 17], we know of no tools that help the developer directly compare several libraries. With existing tools, the user must manually integrate the knowledge learned about each library. Automation to help developers directly compare and contrast libraries requires matching of similar components (such as ....

A. S. Yeh, D. R. Harris, and M. P. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 184--194, 1997.

....not automatically extractable by a tool: they are too idiosyncratic. Furthermore, existing tools that promise to aid in recovering architectural information from source artifacts are insufficient. This is because they rely on a single source of information such as an AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) [12] or a source model [8] Our claim, that we will substantiate through examples in this paper, is that the information derivable from any single extraction technique is insufficient for general architecture recovery and reconstruction. Why For two reasons: the use of late binding in programming ....

A. Yeh, D. Harris, M. Chase, "Manipulating Recovered Software Architecture Views", Proceedings of ICSE 19, (Boston, MA), May 1997, pp. 184-194.

No context found.

Alexander Yeh, David Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proc. of ICSE-19, pages 184-194, May 1997.

No context found.

M. P. Chase, D. Harris, and A. Yeh. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 184--194. ACM, 1997.

No context found.

Alexander Yeh, David Harris, and M. Chase. Manipulating recovered software architecture views. In Proceedings of ICSE 19, pages 184-194, May 1997.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC